Dear Colleagues,

Why are people solidary? With whom are they solidary? Solidarity happens within a so-called group of equals. People are solidary because they care about other members of the group, and because they trust there will be reciprocity. That may explain solidarity among small groups of people such as family, friends or neighborhoods. However, larger systems of social solidarity rest on larger conceptions of groups of equals, so large that they make personal acquaintance with all the members of the group impossible. In these cases, the group of equals is imagined rather than tangible.

This will be the case for systems of social welfare and, even more so, for welfare states. They rest on the premise that the people inhabiting within the limits of the state comprise a group of equals (i.e., a nation). Since welfare states are sustained on the (voluntary) economic contributions of citizens, they need to care for other members of the group (other people living within the limits of the state) and to trust that their contributions shall be returned should they need the protection of the welfare system.

The developing of such an attachment, by which an individual citizen will imagine she belongs together with the rest of the people inhabiting within the borders of the state, is a construct in which political elites play a significant role. In the case of an already existing state, it needs to reassure citizens that they belong together and demonstrate how they are equal, because people by themselves cannot gain direct knowledge about these matters through their personal relationships.

The actions by which the state communicates the idea that people inhabiting within its borders constitute a group of equals (i.e., a nation) can be labelled as state-reproducing nationalism. It is also known as banal nationalism, everyday nationalism, maintenance nationalism, or majoritarian nationalism.  Apart from the strengthening of social trust and solidarity among citizens, it also serves the purposes of increasing the state's legitimacy and deepening democratic involvement. Only very recently has this become the object of systematic scientific research. When the state's reproduction takes place through the provision of welfare, the state outlines the group of equals by defining who is entitled to welfare benefits. This is also known as welfare nationalism.

Despite the abundance of theoretical and empirical literature on national identities, their formation, typologies and components, there has been much less discussion about the importance of the material living conditions within one particular territory for citizens’ attachment to the political community bound to that territory.  In this sense, empirical analysis has centered on history, studying, for example, the role of particular groups on the creation of identities, or analyzing the incentives for sovereignty movements under economic crises such as the one experienced in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. Generally speaking, however, ‘cultural materialism’ has had little relevance in the literature dealing with national identities’ evolution and change.

In analyzing the importance of materialist conditions, welfare nationalism can be mentioned as a new label for studies linking economy and national identity. It can be defined as the “discourses and ideologies in which welfare and national identity are intertwined and welfare provision is based on national membership” (Keskinen 2016: 355). As Keskinen, Norocel and Jorgersen (2016: 323) argue “economic issues and welfare benefits are closely connected to questions of culture and national identity (…)”. Thus, several authors have pointed out that the self-portrayal of modern states (mainly democracies) as agent of equitable development has been the most important way in which they have fostered national identities as a legitimate ideology, “so that the image of the nation was reconstructed as the social justice community” (Brown 1998: 2). This same idea, labelled as cohesion theory by Solt (2011: 826), is present in the writings of Deutsch (1964) when he argues that by creating good living conditions, the government creates attachment to the state; he furthermore asserts that it is necessary not only to maintain wellbeing but also to assure the wide distribution of benefits throughout the population (Deutsch 1964: 143).  Along the same lines, McEwen (2006: 51) claims that the transformation of nation states into welfare states has been among the most significant changes across advanced capitalist democracies, a change by which states have secured the consent of national minorities and accommodated their territorial identities within the framework of the nation state (see also Brown 1998: 13, and Shulman 2003: 24). Although the relationship between a sense of common solidarity and welfare growth might be reciprocal, according to Keating (2001: 40), it is nevertheless true that welfare states foster national identity and unity.

A question of particular interest regards the effects of COVID-19 on welfare nationalism. As the pandemic puts increasing stress on the welfare system, this may lead to welfare chauvinism (i.e., a narrowing of the definition of the group of solidarity, excluding particular groups of people from benefits). COVID-19 also represents a breaching edge that exposes assumptions and taken-for-granted practices regarding citizens' relations with national institutions. It is at these breaching edges that otherwise non-spoken beliefs are voiced. The state's nationalist reproduction practices occur, among others, when people pay their taxes, contributing thereby to the maintenance of social security systems, as well as when they receive free heath assistance or unemployment benefits from welfare systems.

This Special Issue on “Identity Politics and Welfare Nationalism” welcomes comparative articles that consider the differences among types of welfare states, as well as case studies. Qualitative and quantitative contributions are equally welcome, focusing either on the elite, on the one hand, or citizens, on the other, as well as the connections between them. Articles considering the effects of COVID-19 are of particular interest.

Dr. Antonia María Ruiz Jiménez
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Genealogy is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• national identities
• nationalism
• welfare nationalism
• welfare chauvinism
• state-reproducing nationalism
• majoritarian nationalism
• banal nationalism